Starting Early -- The John Olerud Hall Of Fame Case
Anyone who reads about baseball on the Internet is likely experiencing Hall of Fame burnout. Before moving on with our baseball lives, I wanted to highlight a player who will be on the Hall ballot for the first time during the next voting cycle, John Olerud. His Met tenure was too brief (1997-1999) and he also played for the Blue Jays, Mariners, Yankees and Red Sox. His case is similar to Keith Hernandez's, in that they were high OBP, great fielding first basemen whose careers were a bit too short. Olerud won't come close to making the Hall but he is no David Segui or Shane Reynolds throwaway type candidate. His case is stronger than most probably think. This is aimed at Hall voters with all different perspectives. The sabermetrically-inclined, the traditionally-inclined, those who heavily weigh character -- all can appreciate and understand this case.
Statistics
Olerud finished his 17-year career with a slash line of .295/.398/.465, 255 home runs and 1230 RBI. What he lacked in home run power he made up for with patience at the plate, in the form of a career 14.4% BB%, and doubles power. His OPS+ was 128, meaning his OPS was 28% better than league average for his career. This beats writer-elected Hall of Fame first basemen Tony Perez and George Sisler. Olerud's performance at the plate is not enough to make a reasonable Hall case. Factoring only hitting, he's basically Tim Salmon (not that there's anything shameful about hitting as well as Salmon did). However, offense is not the only variable for player evaluation.
Defense must also be considered, and Olerud excelled at it. He was famously a part of the "Best Infield Ever" and won three Gold Gloves, while probably deserving a bunch more. Despite a lack of speed, Olerud was nimble at first base and adept at picking throws in the dirt. The perception that he was a standout with the glove is supported by Sean Smith's TotalZone statistic. Including double play runs, Olerud saved 97 runs above average with his glove, 3rd all-time behind Keith Hernandez's 120 and Albert Pujols's 116. He saved more runs than Mark Grace, George Scott and Todd Helton, three other highly regarded defensive first basemen.
The statistic wins above replacement (WAR) combines offense, defense, baserunning, positional adjustment and playing time in an attempt to assign a win value to an individual player. It's useful for comparing players of different eras and different positions. Olerud's career WAR per Baseball Projection is 56.6. This surpasses writer-selected Hall of Fame position players such as:
- Joe Medwick
- Lou Boudreau
- Bill Dickey
- Mickey Cochrane
- Luis Aparicio
- Ralph Kiner
- Jim Rice
It is also just 0.2 WAR less than recently enshrined Andre Dawson. WAR is not the end-all, be-all measure of a player's performance, but it's a great place to start. Actual voters, like Ken Davidoff and Peter Gammons, cited the stat in their ballot explanation pieces, evidence of its increasing prominence in the game. In my estimation, Olerud had two MVP-type seasons, four All-Star caliber seasons and four more above average seasons. A couple more years of ~4 win production would make his case much stronger but 56.6 WAR is still something to be admired.
Team Impact
Olerud is a winning ballplayer. Some of his accomplishments:
- Two-time World Series champion, with the 1992 and 1993 Blue Jays.
- Competed in the postseason in eight different seasons, with each of the five teams he played for.
- Member of the 2001 Seattle Mariners, who won 116 games in the regular season. This is tied for the most ever.
- In Game 1 of the 1999 NLDS, he homered off Cy Young Winner Randy Johnson to put the Mets up 3-0 in the 3rd inning. This set the tone for the series and the seemingly invincible Johnson would not pitch another inning in 1999 after this game. The Mets won the series in four games.
- Had almost indentical numbers at home and on the road, demonstrating the unflappability for which he was known.
- Had a higher OPS w/RISP (.902) and in high leverage situations (.880) than his overall career OPS (.863).
Character
Olerud was a quiet, uncontroversial, team-first kind of player. He was(/is) also a nice guy. I met him at the Mets Clubhouse on Long Island back in 1997, his first season with the Mets. He and Bobby Jones were there signing autographs and meeting fans. I made it there close to the end of the session and there was no line. Upon walking up to the players' table, I took out the ball and about five baseball cards I brought along. The store manager saw this and snickered to my dad that each item would cost $5 to have autographed. Resisting the urge to belligerently retort that he could direct his money grubbing comment towards me, I instead said hello to both players and shook their hands. Olerud signed my ball and asked to look through the cards I brought. One was my prized 1993 Upper Deck card, which was usually displayed side-by-side on my dresser with the Paul Molitor and Roberto Alomar cards from the same set. The trio had finished 1-2-3 in the batting title race that year, three stars on a team full of them (Rickey Henderson, Joe Carter, Al Leiter and a young Carlos Delgado were also present). After thumbing through the cards, Olerud signed all of them with a slight smirk which was visible to the store manager. There was no extra charge per autograph, obviously, and he also answered some questions I had about improving my hitting. The answers escape me now but I'm sure they were gold. It's also worth noting that Jones was equally gracious and demonstrated a curveball grip that I would use to surrender multiple 400+ foot home runs during my high school pitching career. For a twelve year-old who spent his summers watching baseball, playing baseball and memorizing stats on the back of Topps cards, this was a banner day, made even more memorable by a simple gesture from a star athlete. Character shouldn't be the basis of a Hall of Fame induction but is something that should be weighed, especially in borderline cases. Olerud passes that test.
Olerud's Best Infield Ever brethren Robin Ventura had a similar career in terms of value and longevity. Ventura was on this year's ballot and only received 1.3% of the vote. Similar results for Johnny O. are expected, and there's no reason to be upset about that. He's probably a small tick below borderline and if not for the glut of awesome first baseman in the 1990's (Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Jim Thome) serious consideration would probably be warranted. A vote for Olerud next year would come mostly from the subjective heart and not the objective brain. If nothing else, his inclusion on the ballot will bring some warranted attention to a player who deserved it but never desired it.
4 recs |
119 comments
|
Comments
I'd really love to see Olerud get in along with Ventura
obviously it’s not gonna happen, but Olerud was my favorite baseball player after Piazza when I was 8 and 9. I still say we’d have won the World Series had he been our first baseman over Zeile.
One mistake though. Total Zone has Pujols at 111, so Olerud would be third.
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
Oops, thanks for the heads up
Was going off of an old Sean Smith article from a couple years ago. Didn’t realize Pujols picked up so many runs last couple seasons.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 8, 2010 7:34 AM EST up reply actions
He's gonna have more than Hernandez after next year
UZR doesn’t like Pujols nearly as much
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
Mark Grace ftw?
He saved more runs than Mark Grace, George Scott and Mark Grace, three other highly regarded defensive first basemen.
A "Zeile" for avoiding outs
An alternate post:
“Starting Late: The Keith Hernandez Hall of Fame Case.”
That said, I sincerely believe he should get in. Which is a shame, since he’ll only get like 6 votes.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Keith was a better hitter and a better fielder than Mattingly
How Mattingly sticks on the ballot when Keith got no consideration is beyond me.
Easy:
Mattingly was a True Yankee™, and people called him “Donnie Baseball.” His only drawback was that he wouldn’t cut off his sideburns.
Hernandez was a Cardinal, Met and Indian, and he snorted coke. People called him “Mex.” Clearly, he’s a bad, bad man.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
The counterargument is:
“I’m Keith Hernandez”
You don't cheer for the Mets. You drink for the Mets.
Better hitter?!
how do you figure that???
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Mattingly hit for more power, but his HR numbers were boosted by being a lefty hitting at Yankee Stadium. Despite that, he only has a career .035 edge in slugging, because they had about the same number of doubles and Keith had 3x as many triples. And because Keith had much better plate discipline, he’s got a career .026 edge in OBP, and OBP is more important than SLG. Adjusting for playing environments, Keith has a higher career OPS+ than Mattingly, 128 to 127. So, yes, better hitter.
a 1 point difference
in OPS+ hardly makes the argument conclusive.
obp more important than slg? yawn.
Mattingly had higher highs than Keith did. For 4 seasons DM was the best player in the sport. Keith was an excellent player for a long time but he never reached DM’s level. For me, it’s the period of dominance that separates them.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
I sort of agree
it’s a little disingenuous to use Mattingly’s career numbers to compare to Keith (or to anyone). Mattingly at his peak was a great hitter, he had a 158 OPS+ during his 3-year peak & a 150 during his 5-year peak. Hernandez, by contrast, was 148 OPS+ at his 3-year peak and 140 at his 5-year. At their best, Mattingly was a 10% better hitter than Keith.
2009 Did Not Happen
OK, fair enough, Mattingly had a higher peak
But Keith was very good from 1976 straight through to 1988, whereas Mattingly was pretty mediocre after 1987. (Dale Murphy-like in that regard, except he dropped off at an even younger age.)
And this is all, again, in addition to the fact that Keith was perhaps the best defensive 1B ever.
that's fine, but
it sort of doesn’t add much to the Keith – Mattingly discussion since DM won 9 GGs himself…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Gold Gloves
are meaningless. Rafael Palmeiro won one in a year when he played 28 games in the field and 135 as DH. Mattingly wasn’t nearly in the same class as Hernandez or Olerud in the field. As James pointed out above, Keith saved 120 runs above average with his glove and Olerud 97; Mattingly saved 33.
well, you can
just consider me a non-believer of those “runs saved” metrics…. Albert Pujols is not the 2nd best glove at 1B of all time. C’mon….
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
Why not?
The fact that a statistic is inconsistent with your preconceived notion is hardly a reason to trash the statistic.
nice of you
to be open minded to someone else’s opinion…
these defensive metrics like uzr fluctuate wildly from year to year for many players which impairs its conclusiveness, imo.
and I just don’t know enough about Smith’s metric that you mentioned to give it any weight. Sorry, if you don’t accept that. I had the great pleasure of watching both NY 1Bmen play every day in the 80’s living in NY and I felt that DM was as good a glove as there was at the position in the game… or 1 and 1a if that makes you feel any better.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
whatever disdain
you may have for hardware (GGs in this case), I can understand dismissing 1 or 2 or 3, but Mattingly won 9. No one with any degree of reason and objectivity can dismiss that.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
I saw them both of plenty of times also
And Hernandez was a better fielder. And most if not all of his peers would have agreed with this. Hernandez had unique range for a first baseman and actually was able to play so far into the hole as a result of it. Before Keith people didn’t really pay much attention to defense at first base, he was kind of a groundbreaker at the position.
Mattingly had peaks as a hitter that Hernandez never had but Mex was more consistent overall. Remember too that Golden Gloves, despite being nomnally a fielding award only, is often given to a player who is perceived to be more valuable because of his offense as well. If you go by the criteria that a Hall of Famer is someone considered to be the best player at their position for a number of years, they both deserve to get in or at least get more votes than they have gotten.
And herein
lies the problem with going based on people’s recollection of watching players, let alone people’s recollection of what sportswriters or other players thought about those players. ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose remembers it one way, Endys Game remembers it another, and we’re back where we started. I’ll trust Sean Smith, who spends a whole ton of time looking at this stuff, over either of you, personally.
Endy,
can I ask what evidence you have for the claim that a GG “is often given to a player who is perceived to be more valuable because of his offense as well”?
It sounds like 9 GGs are dismissable, but 11 are not. Do I have that about right? ;)
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
no you are totally confused
you brought up GG not me. I just wanted to point out that by that metric Keith was still better.
as for my comment about GG going to offense as well, it depends on the position but I think there are many examples of players getting Golden Gloves over other players arguably better with the glove who were not as talented hitters. The idea being that it is even more impressivie if you can be outstanding in the field and also be above average at the plate. But who cares? This wasn’t central to my argument.
did you ever see either one play?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
the claim that
you saw both play sounds dubious if you are saying that Mattingly got any of his GGs b/c of his bat. That is just hilarious and frankly it really reveals your bias.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
these are your words, no?
“Remember too that Golden Gloves, despite being nomnally a fielding award only, is often given to a player who is perceived to be more valuable because of his offense as well.”
what was that for if not to question the legitimacy of Mattingly’s hardware?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
All it does is question the legitimacy of the award itself.
Remember, this is an award that gave Adam Jones a Gold Glove instead of Franklin Guitierrez.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Don't you love it?
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 9, 2010 1:51 AM EST up reply actions
No, you were right.
9 is less than 11 most of the time.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
Ha.
Yeah, I did that.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
yeah ok I feel sheepish too
I just didn’t know, since he kept talking about Mattingly’s nine gold gloves if he actually realized that Keith won more
anything taken out of context can sound odd...
“And this is all, again, in addition to the fact that Keith was perhaps the best defensive 1B ever.”
by JoshNY on Jan 8, 2010 9:25 AM PST up reply
that’s fine, but
“it sort of doesn’t add much to the Keith – Mattingly discussion since DM won 9 GGs himself…”
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 9:27 AM PST
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Just because you say he was the best player in the sport
doesn’t make it so. Joe Posnanski would disagree, for instance, but would say that both of them were in the conversation during the 1980s.
And just because you yawn at the fact that OBP is more important than SLG, doesn’t make you right about that either.
You’re right that a one point difference in OPS+ doesn’t make the argument conclusive, but it certainly doesn’t prove the opposite either.
it was your statement, not mine.
regarding obp being “more important” than SLG. Do you have any intention of supporting that claim?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Sure
You could start with this article by our own Eric Simon. It cites to a couple of articles by Tom Tango but those links are broken. There are plenty of articles touching on the point including this one and this one. Do you have anything that says otherwise?
I think there is a problem with the way
this argument has been presented by these folks. These arguments (which I have seen before) are taking up this cause seemingly just for the purpose of adjusting the scale of obp so that it matches SLG. But people who follow these things already make that adjustment in their minds when they see the components of OPS. If someone has an OPS of 330/550, then I instinctively know that the player is in the upper echelons of the SLG world, but pedestrian at getting on base.
As to incrementally separating these 2 to determine what’s better or a bigger factor in creating a run… well, that’s hard to do b/c the 2 stats are linked together. The attempt to untangle them which created w/OBA is fine. And I realize in this case that Olerud has the higher career w/OBA, then Keith, then Donnie, though they are all pretty close.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
but again, you're not adjusting for the disparity in hitting environments.
Donnie’s was very favorable, Keith’s was certainly less so.
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
Which is why you use OPS+ rather than raw OPS
(Obviously, there are stats that adjust better, but OPS+ is an easy starting point to work with.)
thanks for the link
very interesting essay. Another thing I took away from it…. I always thought that Will Clark deserved more HOF support than he got… and the evidence helps to justify what I thought…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
1 note
I mostly agree with your conclusions, but I don’t really agree with how you went about your WAR comparisons. First of all, it’s never fair to compare any non-catcher’s WAR with a catcher’s WAR. Dickey and Cochrane are among the top 7 or so catchers of all time; at catcher, you have deserving HOFers with career WARs in the 30’s and 40’s, guys like Roy Campanella. Bench has the highest career WAR at the position, and there are 51 guys ahead of him on the master list.
Second, Aparicio and Rice are among the least deserving players in the Hall. Kiner and Medwick are barely better, but Kiner at least accumulated his WAR in only 9 1/2 seasons, making him as intense a peak performer as exists in the Hall. Medwick lasted longer, but still required 350 or so fewer games to get 0.6 less WAR than Olerud. Ditto for Boudreau who had 0.7 less WAR in 600 fewer games.
None of these players are really remotely comparable to Olerud in terms of career shape.
I was going to check
I was surprised by the fact Kiner, Medwick, Dickey and Cochrane didn’t measure up better. Boudreau was good but had one great year, and was player-manager of the Indians ‘48 world series winning team. I suppose you aren’t supposed to combine manager and player but gotta be hard to be a star player and the manager.
Olerud (and Ventura) fine players but just shy of the Hall, although the Hall is getting diluted somewhat I suppose.
Dickey and Cochrane
Really measure up just fine. WAR can’t do catchers well enough to compare them to other positions. That’s the problem.
People often think of Kiner being better than he was. He was a two-dimensional player who crawled into the Hall of Fame on his final ballot to much public outcry as to his unworthiness. He was also widely disliked by the media, teammates, and management. Branch Rickey was famous for hating Kiner.
Medwick is a borderline Hall of Famer whose case is made on three consecutive seasons that rank among the best in history. He’s hurt overall by his utter refusal to take a walk.
Kiner was an excellent hitter
He just had a very short career. I see no problem with him being in the Hall
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
you realize that
it took Kiner 20 years to get in…?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
I still think he deserved it though
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
I think Rickey was famous for a lot more than hating Ralph Kiner
and Kiner was absolutely awesome from ‘47-’52, probably the best player in baseball behind Musial and Williams during that span (and since they’re two of the 10 best non-pitchers in history, that’s not too shabby). It was a short peak, but it was such a crazy peak and he was so good at hitting homeruns that I think it was hall worthy
2009 Did Not Happen
also
Medwick was nicknamed Ducky. I don’t care if he hit like Rey Ordonez and fielded like Mo Vaughn, that’s just an awesome name.
2009 Did Not Happen
ah
never saw that. Always weird when you see actors from roles before they got really famous.
2009 Did Not Happen
You mean like Charlie Sheen in Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
Although at that point he was already probably known as Martin Sheen’s son.
Campanella
is maybe not the best example to use for catchers getting in with lower career WAR, because he didn’t get to the majors until age 26 (in 1948, one year after Jackie Robinson), after spending ten years in the Negro League, the Mexican league, and the minors. (He also lost maybe a couple of years off the end of his career because of his tragic car accident, but he was 36 at that point and probably wouldn’t have accumulated too many more WAR.)
I'm not sure how much time he really lost though on the front end, either
probably only 2 or 3 seasons productive. He still would have been in the minors until he was in his early 20’s, at the earliest.
2009 Did Not Happen
John Olerud is going to get a lot of blank votes- BBWAA members are going to forget he's on the ballot.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 8, 2010 10:14 AM EST reply actions
Finding out that Rickey story was not true was one of the saddest days of my childhood
Well, OK, I was probably like 30 when I found that out, but still, it was sad.
I refuse to acknowledge that it isn't true
It’s more fun that way
by Bieser's Balk on Jan 8, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
I was at that signing in '97!
That was one of the coolest days of my childhood – I still have the ball I had them sign.
2009 Did Not Happen
Olerud
actually has very similar career numbers to Mattingly’s with also a similar number of great seasons (4 – 6 depending on your judgment). As such, I’d expect Olerud to get about the same level of support Donnie has gotten.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 11:33 AM EST reply actions
Johnny Baseball was probably slightly better than Mattingly
But won’t get anywhere near the level of support.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 8, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Mattingly
hasn’t gotten much support to speak of… certainly not as much as he deserves.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 11:50 AM EST reply actions
He's stayed on the ballot for a few years now
Which Keith didn’t, and Olerud won’t, despite not being as good a player as either of them. I’d say that qualifies as pretty significant support.
Are you sure you’re posting to the right site?
I think Mattingly's gotten about the right amount of support
Keith was criminally under-supported. Olerud, while having similar numbers, suffers from the fact that he played in an era with better first basemen than Keith and Mattingly played with.
2009 Did Not Happen
by cjmulrain on Jan 8, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
which means what?
that I should check my objectivity at the door?
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 11:59 AM EST reply actions
Objectivity
You mean the kind of objectivity where you ignore the objective statistical evidence Josh provided for you above when comparing Mattingly to Hernandez?
I mean, there’s nothing wrong with saying “I think Don Mattingly should get more support for the Hall of Fame.” But if you think Mattingly belongs in there, I think you can’t ignore that Keith and Olerud had better careers and have better arguments for the Hall than Mattingly does.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think either were
ever considered the premier player in the sport for more than 1 season. Mattingly was for a 4 yr stretch. Everyone uses a different criteria for judging HOF worthiness. Mine is whether said player was a dominant player at his position for a period of time. There are lots of players who were very good but never great. Despite there being something to say for consistency, just being consistently very good doesn’t cut it for me.
The issue with Mattingly has always been just with the length of time of his dominance… 4 years (or 6) is probably just a year or 2 short of him getting much more support. There have been other HOFers who only had brief periods of brilliance… Kiner is one… he had 7 great years iirc… and we all know about Koufax…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 12:21 PM EST reply actions
that is simply inaccurate
Keith Hernandez was considered the premier first baseman in the league for more than one season.
defensively, yes. overall, doubt it.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
the world isn't ruled by your doubts
From 1979-1984, the man won an MVP, a world series ring and had three seasons of a .400 WOBA. And yes, won gold gloves and made it to the All star team. And that is before he became a Met. So who was clearly better in that time? And what is the one season you do give him credit for being the best overall first baseman
This would probably go better if you just admittied you were a Yankee troll who wanted to go on about how great Donnie Baseball was. I happen to agree with you that he was a better hitter than Mex but I don’t think the case is as strong as you make it out to be.
what is causing your unbalanced temperament?
Yankee troll? I love it. So if someone is able to view things without orange and blue goggles on then he’s labeled a Yankee troll?? omg, I’m sure I’ve been a Met fan longer than you’ve been breathing.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 4:03 PM EST up reply actions
ok so you are a Met fan, I take it back
but you started by being arrogant and rude to JoshNY. But he can take care of himself. And by the way I am pretty old.
To be honest I don't think he's being rude
I just think he’s being stubborn, but then, I have little to no patience for people who say “the stats don’t jive what I saw with my eyes, therefore the stats must be wrong”. Your eyes can deceive you, your memory can deceive you. These are things that happened 15-30 years ago that we’re talking about.
(To be fair, I’m being stubborn too, but I’m backing up the points I’m making.)
you realize
that Total Zone uses play by play text of games on RetroSheet and attempts to convert them very often using estimates where specific detail isn’t available.
We’re not talking about single, doubles or walks and strikeouts here… events that are not open to interpretation. so I think you’re being a little bit arrogant with regard to the veracity and accuracy of the data you are citing. I understand that you already have a large emotional investment in these experimental metrics, but you should acknowledge that we’re talking about defensive ability, which to a great extent is open to interpretation… you know like who you’d rather have play at any given position….
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
of course they are
but aren’t MVP and CY awards also opinion polls?
lots of players can win 1 or 2 of any of these opinion polls, no? but if you’re saying that winning 9 or 11 is meaningless then I can’t agree.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
all I've said
regarding defense is that it doesn’t really separate Keith from Donnie since both were the premier defensive players at 1B in their respective leagues for a decade. I won’t argue with the sentiment that Keith was better, but Mattingly was just behind him. I know it’s sacrilege to say to a Keith admirer that anyone was close to him with the glove, but not acknowledging DM’s defensive ability at all is a worse infraction, imo.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 8, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, they are
and therefore I would generally contend that they are also largely meaningless in attempting to evaluate players objectively.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that
but mainly on account of Eddie Murray. I don’t think it’d be unrealistic to call Keith the premier first baseman in the National League from 1979 to 1987 though. First basemen who don’t hit for a lot of power are never going to get a lot of Hall of Fame consideration, though.
In my opinion, it’s a bit unfair to Keith and players with a similarly balanced skill set that the only way the Hall of Fame voters (speaking of them as a collective, that is) know how to weight fielding is “was he one of the best few defenders of all time at shortstop?”
Hah, I was reading the Gammons HOF article that James linked...
And it showed how all the MLB.com writers voted. Marty Noble’s ballot……
Barry Larkin and Dave Parker.
"For $11.4 million you can actually get a good player. But of course this is one of the things foolish organizations do: They complain that they can't afford good players after spending millions of dollars on not-good players." --Rob Neyer
Found some "reasoning"
Parker remains the the best player I ever have covered. He beat opponents every way possible, running over them, if necessary. And he was better at keeping a clubhouse loose than any player I’ve experienced. I hadn’t voted for him until now because of his involvement in the 1985 cocaine mess in Pittsburgh. But I had supported the Hall candidacy of Keith Hernandez, the second-best player I ever covered, despite his involvement with cocaine. That inconsistency had to be rectified. I can forgive their flaws more readily than I can forgive Alomar’s [spitting incident]. Wait till next year.
"For $11.4 million you can actually get a good player. But of course this is one of the things foolish organizations do: They complain that they can't afford good players after spending millions of dollars on not-good players." --Rob Neyer
Rampant and deliberate cocaine use over a number of years
More egregious than one spitting incident in the heat of the moment. And Alomar and Hirschbeck have since made peace. Great reasoning Noble. His ballot is probably the worst I’ve seen. Well, 2nd worse to Jay Mariotti’s blank one.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 9, 2010 2:47 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that was perhaps the most bizarre ballot I saw.
In another article (a fawning piece about Dawson’s selection — with no mention of the fact he didn’t vote for the Hawk), he states that :
“The electorate was stingy in other instances. Dave Parker, named on 25 percent of the ballots in 1998, endured a 10th straight year with lower than 20 percent support; Barry Larkin, thought to be nearly as strong a first-year candidate as Alomar, was checked on barely half the ballots; and Lee Smith was left still looking up at 50 percent after eight years of eligibility. No, it don’t come easy. And oftentimes, it doesn’t come at all. See Ted Simmons.”
But that’s the closest think I can find to commentary on his own votes.
"It's Father's Day today at Shea, so to all you fathers out there, Happy Birthday." -- Ralph Kiner
Dave Parker (Strawberr-ied) his career, too much of a good thing I guess,
things like liquids and white powders, and much more.
Keith's failure to make the Hall is partly self-inflicted, isn't it?
He smoked, and iirc he wrote that he hit the weights one offseason then had his best power year, but didn’t continue working out because he didn’t enjoy it.
John Olerud is no Hall of Famer!!
He was good with the Mets, and had some good seasons, fine ballplayer. Compare him to Gherig or Eddie Murray, and not to light hitting shortstops, who struck out 9 (nine) times and hit 18 homers in 560 ABs in 1948 while winning MVP.
Let's be serious, today's players are coddled and moreover, they don't
have to play in one city in the morning, travel by train and get in an afternoon game in
the “dog days” of summer. By the way god forbid a night game followed by an afternoon game the following day. And travel days, plus upteeen days in between to rest during the play-offs……because the starter went six and two- thirds (omitting Cliff Lee from this diatribe).
I don't know
and my brain hurt just reading his posts
Take it down a notch
We get it. You’re older than many here, things were tougher in your day, players today have it easy, stats are ruining the game, etc. You’re not adding anything new or worthwhile.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 9, 2010 2:49 AM EST up reply actions
when i was a boy, i walked fifteen miles through the snow every day to school
John Olerud, Hall of Famer. Got a nice ring to it.
My college actually had a dorm like that.
Not 15 miles to campus, but it managed to be uphill both ways.
by BobbyV_Incognito on Jan 9, 2010 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
Olerud was
a terrific player but wasn’t the top 2 or 3 most dominant 1Bmen of his era. Timing might be the biggest issue of his candidacy.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Jan 9, 2010 12:26 AM EST reply actions
I didn't see it mentioned, but Fangraphs has a article on Olerud now:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/john-oleruds-hall-of-fame-case
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 9, 2010 3:27 PM EST reply actions

by 



























